Don't trust Zcash & Mathew Green. They are in bed with the enemy.
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @notgrubles view original on Twitter
*Matthew, with double t. The Zcash cryptography expert clearly stating in the "deleted" interview that government backdoors in Zcash are both technically feasible and a desired feature.
Something I would have defenetely added to this answer to @AmirPolyteknik if I knew about it back then:
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @giacomozucco view original on Twitter
You guys know that I have a fetish for analogies, so bear w/ me about this one. Thesis: if Bitcoin is digital Gold, then the (pseudo)"SPV" model for light nodes is digital Coinage, w/ basically the same trade-offs & risks. Argument development following in this tweetstorm:
1) Physical gold was a GREAT form of money for ancient civilizations: great durability in time, good divisibility/density tradeoff, fundamental scarcity (before asteroid/ocean-floor mining), not-too-much-elastic supply due to estraction costs, fair access, recognizability.
2) Last feature, recognizability, was not super-easy to leverage in everyday commerce, though. Sure: you can use hydrostatic weighing to check the gold pieces you receive, but that's often not practical. The verification cost for merchants was kinda high, w/ bare gold pieces.
1) Bitcoin, right now, is a little bit more "digital gold" than "digital cash" only because of PRICE dynamics (not affected by inflation, monetization driving appreciation, gresham law discouraging spending it instead of fist if not necessary), NOT at all because of tx COSTS!
2) Tx costs for ANY form of "cash" known in human history, while often trivial in face-to-face txs (except for verification costs, often quite high), are always orders of magnitude higher than non-cash scriptural money in every case implying distance or complex interactions.
3) W/ Lightning Network & other trustless scaling solutions, as well as w/ the trusted ones, Bitcoin will be even LESS similar to physical cash, because its transfer over significant distances will be almost instant & almost free, a typical feature of NON-cash scriptural money.
1) My answer would be: it probably can, though maybe not alone. The first scaling problem would be that, in current design, "everybody" out of those 7 billions (not really: you should discount for newborn babies, Amish people, etc.) should have at least 2 channels w/ enough...
2)...liquidity in both directions. Assuming a more realistic set of about 4 billion (so excluding heavy IoT/M2M scenarios), if anybody funds 1 channel & "receives" funding for another one, that's 4 billion txs. You don't really have to assume many channel closures: that's just...
3)...a conflict-resolution/liquidity-settlement/ffraud-deterrent mechanism, it could occour very seldom. Assuming current throughput around 10tps (it's slightly more), that's 400 Mseconds, or about 13 years (assuming blockspace is used only for that). Not ideal. Possible...
Ok, here I am. I'll write down some bullet-points. This isn't a rebuttal of your article (no time for that, at least not now): it's just my own list of arguments about what specifically I think makes you, and every other bcasher who isn't intentionally malicious, stupid.
1) Bitcoin is one of the greatest financial opportunities in human history. If anyone interested in wealth & misses it/fucks up w/ it, qualifies as stupid. I get from your other tweets that you're not interested in wealth (I am), so at least this point doesn't really concern you.
2) Bitcoin is one of the greatest opportunities for the advancement of personal freedom in human history. I think whoever qualifies as a "libertarian" in the anglo-saxon "free market" tradition (I guess this is the case for you) & misses it/fucks up w/ it, qualifies as stupid.